Selling Second Life photos in Real Life as NFTs for profit - is it allowed?

[FairreLilette]

1 hour ago, Finite said:

This only applies if the model is the subject of the photo. Just because someone is in a photo, it doesn't make them a model nor the subject. 

No, that isn't what a model release is in America, not in the real world, it doesn't mean a sitting model, one who sat for a photo.  It includes people out in public too when it comes to selling or entering photo contests. 

One of my favorite things to photograph in real life was old carnivals and then I got into photographing carousel horses.  The old "carnies" that had no official logo and just moved from town to town didn't care, but go to Disneyland or to the Santa Pier and you cannot commercially use photographs of their carousel without their permission.  Personal and commercial use are different.  

Selling is very different from personal use.  It has limits.  In America, you really aren't allowed to even take a person's picture without asking first.  You should ask, "may I take your photo?" if you do not know the person.

From Disneyland site:

https://disneyland.disney.go.com/park-rules/

EDIT:  And, then there is property release for real life too.  COPY/PASTE here:

Photographs of properties - buildings, shops, homes, etc (which are owned by someone else) would require a "property release" from the owner of the property for you to go ahead and sell those images - even if you have clicked them. If you have a legal release document then you can sell them for commercial use.Jan 4, 2018

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Finite]

21 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

No, that isn't what a model release is in America, not in the real world, it doesn't mean a sitting model, one who sat for a photo.  It includes people out in public too when it comes to selling or entering photo contests. 

One of my favorite things to photograph in real life was old carnivals and then I got into photographing carousel horses.  The old "carnies" that had no official logo and just moved from town to town didn't care, but go to Disneyland or to the Santa Pier and you cannot commercially use photographs of their carousel without their permission.  Personal and commercial use are different.  

Selling is very different from personal use.  It has limits.  In America, you really aren't allowed to even take a person's picture without asking first.  You should ask, "may I take your photo?" if you do not know the person.

 

Whose permission would I need for say a picture like this? (Not that I would be able to sell this). But just for argument's sake. SL wouldn't let me upload the original so here's a web version.

 

 

[FairreLilette]

8 minutes ago, Finite said:

Whose permission would I need for say a picture like this? (Not that I would be able to sell this). But just for argument's sake. SL wouldn't let me upload the original so here's a web version.

 

 

Well, that should be understandable as no one is recognized and it's blurred.  

And, why couldn't you sell it?  I think it shows a fast moving world in motion.  Many professional photographers use that technique as well as blur.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Finite]

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

Well, that should be understandable as no one is recognized and it's blurred.  

Kk what about this one. It has the Hancock building in it. I'm not sure they still own the naming rights to the building (we still call it the Hancock building) but assuming they did.

 

[FairreLilette]

5 minutes ago, Finite said:

Kk what about this one. It has the Hancock building in it. I'm not sure they still own the naming rights to the building (we still call it the Hancock building) but assuming they did.

 

Okay, I went to a bit of photography school.  Now I know about model releases (doesn't mean a professional model but can be a professional model) and about property releases which I posted above already, as well as explained about private and commercial use.

If you are going to be a commercial photographer, you should seek some advice on what you can and cannot freely sell.

Again copy and paste explanation of property release:

Photographs of properties - buildings, shops, homes, etc (which are owned by someone else) would require a "property release" from the owner of the property for you to go ahead and sell those images - even if you have clicked them. If you have a legal release document then you can sell them for commercial use.Jan 4, 2018

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Finite]

5 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

 

Photographs of properties - buildings, shops, homes, etc (which are owned by someone else) would require a "property release" from the owner of the property for you to go ahead and sell those images - even if you have clicked them. If you have a legal release document then you can sell them for commercial use.Jan 4, 2018

"The law does not apply to buildings created before December 1, 1990 (so architectural photos of such works can be taken and reproduced without permission)."

Also I believe we can sell pictures of anything or anyone in  public view as long as its not for commercial use such as being used in an ad.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Finite

[FairreLilette]

29 minutes ago, Finite said:

"The law does not apply to buildings created before December 1, 1990 (so architectural photos of such works can be taken and reproduced without permission)."

Also I believe we can sell pictures of anything or anyone in  public view as long as its not for commercial use such as being used in an ad.

I would like to see a link where you got that one about property because I disagree.  You cannot take photos of old homes when someone else owns those.  

And, I don't know where you are coming up with stuff about ads.  Commercial does not mean ads, it's means monetary use.  

EDIT:  You can be sued in real life for many things for taking pictures without other's permission some of which are:  defamation, stalking, harassment.  That is why most places require a model release.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Finite]

3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I would like to see a link where you got that one about property because I disagree.  You cannot take photos of old homes when someone else owns those.  

And, I don't know where you are coming up with stuff about ads.  Commercial does not mean ads, it's means monetary use.  

17 U.S. Code § 102(8)

But I found the quote not far from the one you linked verbatim off the interweb. Just a couple below actually. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Finite

[FairreLilette]

3 minutes ago, Finite said:

17 U.S. Code § 102(8)

But I found the quote not far from the one you linked verbatim off the interweb. Just a couple below actually. 

Link please.

[Finite]

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

Link please.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html

 

[kari Velvetleaf]

On 4/30/2021 at 1:53 AM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Old person question here.. What the heck is an NFT?

This old person was wondering the same thing. ;-)

[Finite]

I think it's possible you are taking the term "commercial use" too literally. In law it means only for things used in advertisements, commercials and branding and what not. It doesn't mean literally everything being sold.

[FairreLilette]

6 minutes ago, Finite said:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html

 

Okay, I think is not true.  Here is a link to legal website which gives no exemption for buildings prior to 1990.  If someone owns them you'd better ask first.  Find law is a website for legal professionals.  So, I think what you have there is false.  

(a)  Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.  Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1)  literary works;

(2)  musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3)  dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4)  pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5)  pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6)  motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7)  sound recordings;  and

(8)  architectural works.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-17-copyrights/17-usc-sect-102.html

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Finite]

Just now, FairreLilette said:

Okay, I think is not true.  Here is a link to legal website which gives no exemption for buildings prior to 1990.  If someone owns them you'd better ask first.  Find law is a website for legal professionals.  So, I think what you have their is false.  

(a)  Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.  Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1)  literary works;

(2)  musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3)  dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4)  pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5)  pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6)  motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7)  sound recordings;  and

(8)  architectural works.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-17-copyrights/17-usc-sect-102.html

Yes that's why I referenced the actual law code. The interweb is the interweb. You can find evidence that the earth is flat on it. If that tells you anything.

[FairreLilette]

5 minutes ago, Finite said:

Yes that's why I referenced the actual law code. The interweb is the interweb. You can find evidence that the earth is flat on it. If that tells you anything.

I find nothing under that law code, that's why I said link please.  Yeah, there is fake stuff published on the internet but I don't have all day for you to go around and around with "I believe" stuff and not even post any links.  

Call a photography school and ask.  

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Finite]

5 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I find nothing under law code, that's why I said link please.  Yeah, there is fake stuff published on the internet but I don't have all day for you to go around and around with "I believe" stuff and not even post any links.  

I can't find the exact location in the code but I think it's related to this portion 

"

(d) Duration of Rights.—(1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.

(2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.

[Rowan Amore]

Therefore, photographers need to be concerned only when entering private property without permission to take a photo of a post-1990 building. Such photos may result in a claim of copyright infringement.

[Rowan Amore]

Google maps takes pictures of homes from public property ( the street or air) and needs no.permission.

[FairreLilette]

5 minutes ago, Finite said:

I can't find the exact location in the code but I think it's related to this portion 

"

(d) Duration of Rights.—(1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.

(2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.

I still say I don't know for sure.   There are private property laws, even for people who own a private home.  I live in a very tempting to photograph homes place - places of famous movie stars even some from the Silent Film era, etc.  I think you may be able to publish a work from the street but places on private property like Disneyland or Graceland, etc, etc... it's definitely a you need permission in many places kind of thing.  

[Rowan Amore]

Except for buildings that cannot be viewed from a public space, the copyright owner of a post-1990 building (the architect, developer, or building owner) cannot prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the building. 

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

I still say I don't know for sure.   There are private property laws, even for people who own a private home.  I live in a very tempting to photograph homes place - places of famous movie stars even some from the Silent Film era, etc.  I think you may be able to publish a work from the street but places on private property like Disneyland or Graceland, etc, etc... it's definitely a you need permission in many places kind of thing.  

If it can be viewed from a public area, it's fair game.

[Finite]

18 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Google maps takes pictures of homes from public property ( the street or air) and needs no.permission.

Yes it's 1st amendment protected activity. Which supersedes copyright law. It's like a photographer for a news agency needing to get every persons permission for a photo taken at a scene of a news story. They don't. They would only need permission if those photo's were to  be used commercially like say in an actual commercial or print ad or some form of branding. It doesn't apply to literally everything being sold.

 

Just to add. I cannot use a picture of Bob Ross in an ad or as a logo for my brand. But I can certainly sell a picture of Bob Ross assuming he was in a place where he wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Finite

[FairreLilette]

52 minutes ago, Finite said:

17 U.S. Code § 102(8)

But I found the quote not far from the one you linked verbatim off the interweb. Just a couple below actually. 

Okay, the code without the eight in parenthesis is the copyright code of what one can copyright.  Here is the code.

17 U.S.C. § 102 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 17. Copyrights § 102. Subject matter of copyright:  In general

 

Okay, now take that code and what I posted wherein the architectural work IS WHAT IS copyrighted have anything to do with images of private property has escaped me here.  What do images have to do with an architectural copyright?  It's the design that's copyrighted and that law doesn't have anything to do with images.

(1)  literary works;

(2)  musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3)  dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4)  pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5)  pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6)  motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7)  sound recordings;  and

(8)  architectural works.

(b)  In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-17-copyrights/17-usc-sect-102.html

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Finite]

3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Okay, the code without the eight in parenthesis is the copyright code of what one can copyright.  Here is the code.

17 U.S.C. § 102 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 17. Copyrights § 102. Subject matter of copyright:  In general

 

Okay, now take that code and what I posted wherein the architectural work IS WHAT IS copyrighted have anything to do with images of private property has escaped me here.  What do images have to do with an architectural copyright?  It's the design that's copyrighted and that law doesn't have anything to do with images.

(1)  literary works;

(2)  musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3)  dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4)  pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5)  pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6)  motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7)  sound recordings;  and

(8)  architectural works.

(b)  In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Yes the (8) is in reference to architectural works (see what you referenced above "(8)  architectural works.") which is what I thought we were discussing. I think more clear definitions of images are found in that Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990.

[FairreLilette]

17 minutes ago, Finite said:

Yes the (8) is in reference to architectural works (see what you referenced above "(8)  architectural works.") which is what I thought we were discussing. I think more clear definitions of images are found in that Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990.

Yes, but that law as I show above protects the architectural design itself and a photo has nothing to do with that unless one is using the photo to help them re-create an older homes non-copyrightable design not necessary sell that photo.  And, no, it's not VARA.  I think VARA is to prevent others from defaming an artist or their work and representing it in a defaming way or something like that.  (I'll post a bit below).  However, back to this SL and the Wiki from Linden Lab, it's a you can but there are stipulations kind of thing, and it's like that in real life too and it's complicated.  In my photography school we learned about model releases and property releases as well as you'd better ask permission before even taking a photo.   I carried model releases with me as they are very inexpensive and asked prior to taking a photograph.   In the LL Wiki, I see LL has built on the real world here a bit about permission, and without being here forever discussing this forever, it's best to read the TOS regarding NFT's as the TOS also says it's up to your own risk you want to take.  Attorneys could be expensive not to mention for fair use an attorney would have to see every single artwork.  I have read the TOS also of some of these NFT's and they want to be sure it is copyrightable artwork one is selling because a legal contract will be recorded into the blockchain upon sale and a legal copyright created into the blockchain to put it simply because that is complicated to explain too because some people could go 'what is a blockchain'.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

ARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights

• right to claim authorship
• right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
• right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
• right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing. To date, "recognized stature" has managed to elude a precise definition. VARA allows authors to waive their rights, something generally not permitted in France and many European countries whose laws were the originators of the moral rights of artists concept.^[2]

Edited May 8, 2021 by FairreLilette